427
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 6 months ago

Any standard that wastes valuable space in the first line of the commit is a hard sell. I don't see the point in including fix/feat/feat! just for the sake of "easy" semantic versioning because generally you know if the next release is going to be major or minor and patches are generally only only after specific bugs. Scanning the commits like this also puts way too much trust in people writing good commit messages which nobody ever seems to do.

Also, I fucking hate standards that use generic names like this. It's like they're declaring themselves the correct choice. Like "git flow".

[-] mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

You can always adapt to your how repo. But yeah, that's the point. If you can trust people to make changes on a repo then you should be able to trust them in using some kind of commit structure.

Generic names are probably used in order to crate a familiar, easy to remember, structurized commit format.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago

The generic name I'm complaining about is "conventional commits", not "fix" and "feat"

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
427 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

19821 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS